3 ms·
Article was written in 2006 when 32-bit architectures were dominant. I suppose the issue is moot now on 64-bit architectures, as the difference between 2^62 an
by foldr 2y ago
Article was written in 2006 when 32-bit architectures were dominant.
I suppose the issue is moot now on 64-bit architectures, as the difference between 2^62 and 2^63 isn't relevant. (2^62 bytes is 4611686 terrabytes.)
- im3w1l 2y agoSpelling it out like that sure gives some perspective - It's a frighteningly low number! They sell 2tb microsd cards nowadays. I bet you could fit 2^64 bytes in a shoebox. So I think uint64 might eventually be insufficient as a size type. Edit: Well not quite, more like a small closet.
- tliltocatl 2y agoAlmost makes you think RISC-V was right with 128-bit extension. On the other hand, exabyte-scale memories might one day be possible, but would it still be useful to maintain single-address-space illusion for these?
- snvzz 2y agoRV128I is not an extension, but a (non-ratified) base ISA. Independent from RV64I, which in turn is independent from (and predates) RV32I.
- coldtea 2y ago>Spelling it out like that sure gives some perspective - It's a frighteningly low number! Yeah, it's very common for computers to have byte addressable 4 exabytes of storage...
- im3w1l 2y agoWell I used to think 64 bits would be enough forever basically, I guess that's why I was a little shocked that it actually might become insufficient at some point even if its far off.
- xigoi 2y agoI do not look forward to the future where common software requires exabytes of memory.
- coldtea 2y agoI'd say it's more likely that in the future we'll regress to 8-bit machines, losing the ability to sustain fab technology, than we'll exhaust 64 bits address space. Having said that, with the advances of Electron apps, you might very well have a point...